anarchy /Noun1.A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.2.Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Sigh. If you insist on the reductionism of dictionary entries: which one of these somewhat self-contradictory definitions do you think applies to Harrelson's remarks?

And if you believe anarchy will lead to disorder, why not just say so, instead of treating the two as one and the same? It's dismissive.

EDIT:

Bleh, not getting into the more-pedantic-than-thou thing again.

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

anarchy /Noun1.A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.2.Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Sigh. If you insist on the reductionism of dictionary entries: which one of these somewhat self-contradictory definitions do you think applies to Harrelson's remarks?

Since you failed to fully quote me, I have no idea what he meant specifically, but as I further pointed out, most people would associate the word with violence and disorder. One need only look at the Sex Pistols which is where I bring my particular exposure to the word from.

BTW: It was YOU, Ken, who sent us scrambling for the dictionary when you asserted that "anarchy is not synonymous with mayhem" when, in certain usages, it is and I daresay that most people would understand it as such. See: The Sex Pistols.

Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:48 pm

Ken

Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pmPosts: 1743

Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood

I understand that many people use them interchangeably in vernacular use. But they're obviously not the same thing if they're described in more than one or two lines. Most people describe anarchy as such because they don't realize that anarchy is actually a historically significant thing--in fact, it is the very situation that our species has lived under for perhaps 99% of its history. The state is a relatively recent invention, and it was practically yesterday that the state was so ubiquitous that people could no longer imagine life without it.

In my understanding, disorder is something akin to culture shock--a society unfamiliar with or unused to a certain social condition, coming into immediate, unmediated contact with that very condition. As with any culture shock, there is a temporary time of uncertainty as the conflict between the old and new states of things struggle towards some kind of equilibrium.

As for the Sex Pistols, I'd wager that they were put up to it by the famous Mr. MacLaren in a bid to gain publicity. I doubt the majority of them new or cared much about anarchy, though John Lydon is a much smarter man than he probably cares to admit.

Bonus points if you're familiar with "Anarchy in the U.S.A.", the even snottier version of the song as recorded by Megadeth.

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

I wouldn't go as far as pressing for Anarchism, but the state-worship-democracy that we in the west have developed for ourselves has given us biblical debt; borderline sociopathic leaders like Tony Blair and Barack Obama; and of course the wonderfully Orwellian Prism surveillance system.

I can honestly see a future where people's brain waves are mapped by the state to search for "terrorist activity".

I can see describing a plague as "biblical," but for debt it seems inapt. I don't think, for all Obama's faults, that he's a (borderline) sociopath though.

A true sociopath is someone like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc. I wouldn't call Bush one though, as he was pretty much a puppet of those three, they were the ones who were really in charge of the country.

Also I think people are greatly misusing the term "Orwelian"(a term which I find annoying to begin with)

You think a government run IT system that captures every piece of electronic communication in the USA (plus a good deal outside it) is not Orwellian??

Hell Fire, Vex, wake the fuck up! I think it's the very definition of Orwellian!

I wouldn't go as far as pressing for Anarchism, but the state-worship-democracy that we in the west have developed for ourselves has given us biblical debt; borderline sociopathic leaders like Tony Blair and Barack Obama; and of course the wonderfully Orwellian Prism surveillance system.

I can honestly see a future where people's brain waves are mapped by the state to search for "terrorist activity".

I can see describing a plague as "biblical," but for debt it seems inapt. I don't think, for all Obama's faults, that he's a (borderline) sociopath though.

Anyone who approves of and facilitates the use of Prism is a sociopath in my books.

I understand that many people use them interchangeably in vernacular use. But they're obviously not the same thing if they're described in more than one or two lines. Most people describe anarchy as such because they don't realize that anarchy is actually a historically significant thing--in fact, it is the very situation that our species has lived under for perhaps 99% of its history. The state is a relatively recent invention, and it was practically yesterday that the state was so ubiquitous that people could no longer imagine life without it.

In my understanding, disorder is something akin to culture shock--a society unfamiliar with or unused to a certain social condition, coming into immediate, unmediated contact with that very condition. As with any culture shock, there is a temporary time of uncertainty as the conflict between the old and new states of things struggle towards some kind of equilibrium.

As for the Sex Pistols, I'd wager that they were put up to it by the famous Mr. MacLaren in a bid to gain publicity. I doubt the majority of them new or cared much about anarchy, though John Lydon is a much smarter man than he probably cares to admit.

Bonus points if you're familiar with "Anarchy in the U.S.A.", the even snottier version of the song as recorded by Megadeth.

I agree with your definition; but the word has now been twisted to include the occupy movement, who actually want more state, not less.

_________________... because I'm a wild animal

Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:20 am

Sean

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pmPosts: 448

Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood

NotHughGrant wrote:

Ken wrote:

I understand that many people use them interchangeably in vernacular use. But they're obviously not the same thing if they're described in more than one or two lines. Most people describe anarchy as such because they don't realize that anarchy is actually a historically significant thing--in fact, it is the very situation that our species has lived under for perhaps 99% of its history. The state is a relatively recent invention, and it was practically yesterday that the state was so ubiquitous that people could no longer imagine life without it.

In my understanding, disorder is something akin to culture shock--a society unfamiliar with or unused to a certain social condition, coming into immediate, unmediated contact with that very condition. As with any culture shock, there is a temporary time of uncertainty as the conflict between the old and new states of things struggle towards some kind of equilibrium.

As for the Sex Pistols, I'd wager that they were put up to it by the famous Mr. MacLaren in a bid to gain publicity. I doubt the majority of them new or cared much about anarchy, though John Lydon is a much smarter man than he probably cares to admit.

Bonus points if you're familiar with "Anarchy in the U.S.A.", the even snottier version of the song as recorded by Megadeth.

I agree with your definition; but the word has now been twisted to include the occupy movement, who actually want more state, not less.

I wouldn't agree with that. The Occupy movement includes a wide variety of different political activists: leftists, socialists, libertarians, anarchists, you name it. They may not always agree on everything, but at least there's no specific political doctrine you have to follow in order to take part.

For the record, I denounce all forms of corporate fascism, but I also believe that government regulation is the exact opposite of the solution.

And you're absolutely right about PRISM: it is a dangerous piece of technology. Of course, most Americans will probably forget about it in a few weeks' time.

Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:14 pm

Sexual Chocolate

Director

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pmPosts: 1754Location: New Hampshire

Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood

Sean wrote:

For the record, I denounce all forms of corporate fascism, but I also believe that government regulation is the exact opposite of the solution.

The more I've studied economics and capitalism in particular, the more I've come to believe that some form of government and some type of regulation is necessary. A fine debate can be had over what that should be, but regulation and rule of law is of the utmost importance. Before you respond, just mull this over for a moment: What do you think would be the consequences of a society in which nothing was regulated and everything was a commodity?

_________________Death is pretty finalI'm collecting vinylI'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.

We need some degree of regulation. But regulation also helps big business over the little guy, and regulation itself becomes a proxy for what business minded people call "barrier to entry", and Marx called "access to the means for production".

Business lobbys government for regulations that keeps their services monopolised to some degree. It's a farce! This one thing I agree with Libertarians on, namely that governments cause monopolies, not prevent them. Even socialists have acknowledged this. For example - in Das Kapital, Marx talks about a rich industrialist called Thomas Peel (who happened to come from the same county as I). He decided to relocate to the new country of Australia and take with him 50 or so servants who would work his farm over there. Problem is, when they got there the 50 or so blokes and girls found there was so much land they could just work for themselves and have their own farms, leaving Peel without the capability of employing staff and he ended up broke. In response to this and Peel's crocodile tears, the British Government artificially raised the price of colonial land to such an extent that the plebs couldn't buy it and would therefore be forced to work for the likes of Peel indefinitely.

Governments work in the interests of existing capital, and regulations are part of this scam.

_________________... because I'm a wild animal

Last edited by NotHughGrant on Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

I understand that many people use them interchangeably in vernacular use. But they're obviously not the same thing if they're described in more than one or two lines. Most people describe anarchy as such because they don't realize that anarchy is actually a historically significant thing--in fact, it is the very situation that our species has lived under for perhaps 99% of its history. The state is a relatively recent invention, and it was practically yesterday that the state was so ubiquitous that people could no longer imagine life without it.

In my understanding, disorder is something akin to culture shock--a society unfamiliar with or unused to a certain social condition, coming into immediate, unmediated contact with that very condition. As with any culture shock, there is a temporary time of uncertainty as the conflict between the old and new states of things struggle towards some kind of equilibrium.

As for the Sex Pistols, I'd wager that they were put up to it by the famous Mr. MacLaren in a bid to gain publicity. I doubt the majority of them new or cared much about anarchy, though John Lydon is a much smarter man than he probably cares to admit.

Bonus points if you're familiar with "Anarchy in the U.S.A.", the even snottier version of the song as recorded by Megadeth.

I agree with your definition; but the word has now been twisted to include the occupy movement, who actually want more state, not less.

I wouldn't agree with that. The Occupy movement includes a wide variety of different political activists: leftists, socialists, libertarians, anarchists, you name it. They may not always agree on everything, but at least there's no specific political doctrine you have to follow in order to take part.

To be fair I was actually referring to all the V for Vendetta masks I've seen on these things. As if V would be planning for stronger government intervention into anything.

_________________... because I'm a wild animal

Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:37 am

Sean

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pmPosts: 448

Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood

Sexual Chocolate wrote:

Sean wrote:

For the record, I denounce all forms of corporate fascism, but I also believe that government regulation is the exact opposite of the solution.

The more I've studied economics and capitalism in particular, the more I've come to believe that some form of government and some type of regulation is necessary. A fine debate can be had over what that should be, but regulation and rule of law is of the utmost importance. Before you respond, just mull this over for a moment: What do you think would be the consequences of a society in which nothing was regulated and everything was a commodity?

To be fair I was actually referring to all the V for Vendetta masks I've seen on these things. As if V would be planning for stronger government intervention into anything.

V of the book is a straight-up anarchist, but the film somewhat (well, more than somewhat) neuters and confuses his point of view... and I suspect that however well-intentioned they might be, most of these people are being inspired by the film rather than the book.

My favorite thing about the film's theatrical run was that anarchist organizations would set up tables near the movie theaters to tell people about the book and the views it expressed. They called it "A For Anarchy".

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

Yes i agree. And i myself lean towards the graphic novel V for the fact that the film endorsed the narrower view of anti-fascism, as opposed to the broader "pro anarchy" view, which obviously includes anti-fascism, but would also include anti-all present governments.

The latter view would obviously alienate the Occupy crowd somewhat

_________________... because I'm a wild animal

Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:54 pm

Sexual Chocolate

Director

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pmPosts: 1754Location: New Hampshire

Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood

Sean wrote:

Corporations control government! Let's expand the government!

That's not what I said. Libertarianism is a fun fad and all, but we all have to grow up eventually.

_________________Death is pretty finalI'm collecting vinylI'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.

Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:31 pm

Sean

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pmPosts: 448

Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood

Sexual Chocolate wrote:

Sean wrote:

Corporations control government! Let's expand the government!

That's not what I said. Libertarianism is a fun fad and all, but we all have to grow up eventually.

I fail to see how libertarianism is any more ridiculous than the current American brands of liberalism and conservatism. This is the one thing that has always bothered me: both sides of the aisle dismiss libertarianism, even though most liberals and conservatives remain blissfully unaware of their government's abuses.

I am not a libertarian, but I tremendous deal of information about their ideologies, and I can certainly relate to their point of view.

Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:37 pm

JamesKunz

Critic

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 amPosts: 6252Location: Easton, MD

Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood

Sean wrote:

Sexual Chocolate wrote:

Sean wrote:

Corporations control government! Let's expand the government!

That's not what I said. Libertarianism is a fun fad and all, but we all have to grow up eventually.

I fail to see how libertarianism is any more ridiculous than the current American brands of liberalism and conservatism. This is the one thing that has always bothered me: both sides of the aisle dismiss libertarianism, even though most liberals and conservatives remain blissfully unaware of their government's abuses.

I am not a libertarian, but I tremendous deal of information about their ideologies, and I can certainly relate to their point of view.

I sympathize with Sexy Chocolate here. I roll my eyes at libertarians and ask if they enjoy driving on roads.

_________________I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger

Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:38 pm

Sean

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pmPosts: 448

Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood

This same talking point has been directed at libertarians countless times.

Libertarianism--strictly viewed for its own sake --is mainly about social issues. Extreme libertarianism (i.e. anarchism) is at the opposite pole from extreme authoritarianism (i.e. fascism). Today's popular brand of libertarian tends to be a conflation of libertarianism and various right-wing ideologies...

...Unless expressly stated otherwise, of course. For instance, I would characterize myself as a left-libertarian. That's not to say that I'm in a hurry to label myself, but if somebody asked me in an elevator and I only had until the doors opened to respond, that's how I'd answer.

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

Both sides are guilty of cherry-picking libertarian ldeas. The left wants all the social freedoms, but with an economic cushion provided by the state; and the right wants the economic freedoms, but with crackdowns (either moral or legal) on social life.

A true libertarian wants the ultimate freedom in both social and economic spheres. Few of these people actually exist.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum